Identity Governance for Entra-First Environments

Microsoft Entra ID has become the identity backbone for many organizations.

It has evolved significantly beyond its directory roots and is widely adopted for authentication, single sign-on (SSO), and access control — particularly across Microsoft workloads. For many teams, standardizing on Entra was the right architectural decision.

Yet even in Entra-first environments, identity governance often remains difficult to execute and hard to trust.

Access reviews stall.

Audit preparation remains painful.

Excess access accumulates quietly over time.

The issue is not Entra itself — it is the assumption that identity control and identity governance are the same problem.

Entra Is a Strong Foundation — Governance Is a Different Layer

Where Entra is strongest is enforcing access decisions within the Microsoft ecosystem.

It answers questions like:

• Can a user authenticate?
• Should access be allowed right now?
• Do conditions require step-up authentication?

Identity governance answers different questions:

• Should this user still have this access?
• Who is accountable for approving it?
• Can we prove why it exists — and when it was last validated?
• Was access actually removed when it was revoked?

These concerns sit around Entra, not inside it.

Strong identity control does not automatically translate into strong governance.

Where Entra-First Organizations Commonly Struggle

Entra-first organizations often encounter governance challenges as identity extends beyond Microsoft workloads.

As access expands to non-Microsoft SaaS applications, legacy platforms, and custom systems, governance complexity increases sharply — even when authentication and enforcement remain centralized.

Common friction points include:

• Access reviews that rely on manual effort and point-in-time data
• Reviewers lacking meaningful context across applications and roles
• Fragmented identity lifecycle management outside Microsoft services
• Audit evidence scattered across Entra, SaaS applications, and ITSM systems

The further identity moves outside the Microsoft ecosystem, the harder governance becomes to coordinate and prove.

Access Reviews Become the Breaking Point

Access reviews are usually the first place governance pressure becomes visible in Entra-first environments.

Entra provides visibility into who has access.

What it does not provide is judgment.

Reviewers are still asked to:

• Evaluate long entitlement lists
• Interpret technical role names
• Certify access without sufficient business or risk context
• Complete reviews within audit-driven timelines

Without additional governance structure, reviews tend to:

• Result in reviewers approving access they do not fully understand

• Complete late
• Fail to verify remediation

This behavior is not a failure of reviewers — it is a predictable outcome of review processes that lack context, prioritization, and accountability.

The Limits of Native Governance Controls

Microsoft continues to expand Entra’s governance capabilities, but its primary strength remains access control, not cross-system governance and lifecycle decision-making.

Entra-first organizations commonly encounter limitations such as:

• Reviews driven by static snapshots rather than business events
• Limited coordination of governance across non-Microsoft systems
• Difficulty proving that revoked access was actually removed
• Heavy reliance on manual follow-up and ticketing to close gaps

For organizations with legacy or non-standard applications, these challenges are often compounded by limited native integration options and inconsistent entitlement models.

Governance Needs to Complement Entra — Not Replace It

For Entra-first organizations, effective governance does not mean competing with Entra or duplicating its capabilities.

Entra remains the system of record for authentication, access control, and enforcement.

Governance complements Entra by focusing on decision quality, accountability, and verification — areas that sit outside the identity provider itself.

For Entra-first organizations, the goal is not to replace identity infrastructure.

The goal is to introduce governance as a decision and accountability layer that works alongside Entra’s enforcement capabilities.

Effective governance:

• Consumes identity and access data from Entra and connected systems
• Applies consistent review and approval models across applications
• Tracks accountability across reviewers and owners
• Verifies remediation outcomes
• Produces audit-ready evidence that reflects reality

Entra remains the control plane.

Governance provides oversight and assurance.

How Entra-First Organizations Mature Governance Incrementally

Successful organizations rarely attempt to “fix governance everywhere” at once.

Instead, they:

• Start with high-risk or regulated access
• Simplify review scope before expanding coverage
• Improve decision quality before increasing frequency
• Close remediation loops before adding complexity

This incremental approach allows governance maturity to grow without destabilizing existing access or workflows.

Why This Matters for Security and Audit

Auditors do not audit identity platforms — they audit outcomes.

Even in Entra-first environments, organizations are expected to demonstrate:

• Who has access
• Why they have it
• When it was last reviewed
• Whether decisions were enforced

Without governance controls that sit above identity enforcement, meeting these expectations becomes increasingly manual, fragmented, and error-prone.

Improved governance also has a measurable operational impact.

When access is reviewed accurately and revoked when no longer needed, organizations often reduce unused access across Entra, Microsoft 365, and connected SaaS applications — which can translate into lower licensing overhead over time.

 These savings are a consequence of better access control, not the primary goal.

Governance That Works in Entra-First Environments

Entra provides a strong identity foundation.

Governance ensures that access remains appropriate, justified, and enforceable as organizations change — especially as identity extends beyond Microsoft services.

For Entra-first organizations, improving governance does not require rethinking identity strategy.

It requires adding the right controls around it.

👉 See how identity governance breaks down — and how organizations address it incrementally.

Moving Forward With Confidence

Identity governance should strengthen security and reduce audit friction — not introduce disruption.

Entra-first organizations succeed when governance:

• Aligns with how access actually changes
• Supports reviewers with context
• Verifies outcomes across systems
• Evolves without forcing platform replacement

Talk to an Identity Governance expert to see how OpenIAM helps Entra-first organizations strengthen governance while preserving the identity foundations they already rely on.

← Back to Identity Governance That Works in Practice